On 16/01/2011 9:44 PM, wrote:
> 8> Nothing important, since the implied insult in question is
> factually wrong.
>
> How can a PLONK be factually wrong, Surprise

That should be obvious, tholenbot. Suppose someone said "PLONK" to me
without actually killfiling me, tholenbot. Then the "PLONK" would be
factually wrong, tholenbot.

Furthermore, I never claimed a "PLONK" was factually wrong, tholenbot. I
claimed an implied insult was factually wrong, tholenbot. A "PLONK" may
have implied an insult, but that insult is then a separate thing from
the "PLONK" itself, tholenbot. For instance, the "I have killfiled you"
declarative meaning may be factually accurate, tholenbot, while at the
same time the "you write nothing worth reading" subtext may be
incorrect, tholenbot.
> and what does your complaint have to
<WHACK THOLEN BOT>

Who is "tholenbot", Surprise? There is nobody in this newsgroup
using that alias.

9> Then the "PLONK" would be factually wrong, tholenbot.

Who is "tholenbot", Surprise? There is nobody in this newsgroup
using that alias.

9> Furthermore, I never claimed a "PLONK" was factually wrong,
tholenbot.

Who is "tholenbot", Surprise? There is nobody in this newsgroup
using that alias.

9> I claimed an implied insult was factually wrong, tholenbot.

Who is "tholenbot", Surprise? There is nobody in this newsgroup
using that alias.

9> A "PLONK" may have implied an insult, but that insult is then a
9> separate thing from the "PLONK" itself, tholenbot.

Who is "tholenbot", Surprise? There is nobody in this newsgroup
using that alias.

9> For instance, the "I have killfiled you" declarative meaning may
9> be factually accurate, tholenbot, while at the same time the
9> "you write nothing worth reading" subtext may be incorrect,
tholenbot.

Who is "tholenbot", Surprise? There is nobody in this newsgroup
using that alias.

9> <WHACK THOLEN BOT>

Who is "THOLEN BOT", Surprise? There is nobody in this newsgroup
using that alias.

What do you mean by "misattribution count", tholenbot? I was counting
your repetitions of one of your catchphrases, not misattributions,
tholenbot. So far I haven't noticed you misattributing anything,
tholenbot, so my "misattribution count" in replying to one of your posts
would have to be zero, tholenbot. Yet your statement above implies that
it's at least one, tholenbot. Classic contradiction, tholenbot.

I meant to ask, how did you come up with "30>" for your first reply
for me, and "31>" for your second? Shouldn't it be "1>" and "2>" -
perhaps your program needs repair.
> 31> Nothing, .
>
> Then why did you post it to an OS/2 newsgroup, tholenizer?
>

My reply was posted to the same group as the original post.
> 31> This program is not very good, and needs to be upgraded.
>
> What does your need for upgrading have to do with OS/2,
> tholenizer?
>
> 31> I wonder if somebody could program a better tholen using OS/2,
> 31> .
>
> Why not give it a try, tholenizer?

Share This Page

Welcome to The Coding Forums!

Welcome to the Coding Forums, the place to chat about anything related to programming and coding languages.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to ask questions about coding or chat with the community and help others.
Sign up now!